Some of the industries in which men typically work, manufacturing and construction, have been off some in this period. And that could account for some of the decline in employment of men, as well as this other factor.

Chairman PROXMIRE. In view of the fact that we have a long-range structural readjustment in our economy apparently with automation, and so forth, suggesting that we are going to have at least a shift in employment from manufacturing to services, is there likely to be a problem in the future with more men laid off, fewer jobs for men, unemployment rising perhaps among men?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, the shift that you refer to is a shift in the percentage composition. The projections that we have been able to make of the long-term trends in the economy of the United States suggest that manufacturing and construction will continue to rise, even though the service industries will rise more, so that on a percentage composition basis there will be less employment in these heavy industries.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Can you explain why unemployment among professional and technical workers is continuing to rise in the first quarter when it is not rising for the occupational groups?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I am not sure that I have an explanation of the first-quarter movement. But in general the professional workers have been hit by cutbacks in defense, in space, in Federal

Chairman PROXMIRE. In the SST?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. According to the newspapers, that is a recent factor which would not show up in the statistics. Another factor is the squeeze on the colleges-in their financial situation-which has made some of them lay off professional people; and there is a rather large oversupply of young people who are prepared to go into the teaching profession, and who have been unable to get jobs. I think these factors, which go back a year or so, are continuing to make themselves felt in the unemployment rate for professional workers.

Chairman PROXMIRE. To what extent do the returning servicemen account for the increased unemployment in the 16-to-24 age category? Let me elaborate on that a little bit. To what extent do the returning servicemen plus the lottery system which results in young men knowing that they are not going to be drafted and therefore become perhaps less interested in going to college-they do not need the student deferment to what extent would that account for the increase in unemployment in the 16-to-24 age group?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the net return of servicemen to civilian life, which amounts to about 400,000 over the past year, does contribute to unemployment among young men, whether or not it is the same individuals-that is, the servicemen who unemployed, or whether they take jobs that somebody else might have had.

I guess I have no comment on the effect of the lottery. We had heard before that a lot of men were not able to get jobs because they were uncertain about their draft status, or employers were uncertain. And if that was a factor, then they should be more employable now than before.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Having put it this way, I do not want to reverse my field, but it occurs to me that this is possible. There is a

movement in the 16-to-24-year group which explains both the increase in the unemployment rate in March and its decrease in February, so that essentially the rate has not been changed since January.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, I think that that has a major factor both in the downturn in unemployment in February and the upturn in March. Chairman PROXMIRE. Then, everything that I have been discussing about people from the Armed Forces and so forth would not seem to be logical if there has not been any real change?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I would not try to explain the February-to-March change in terms of the influx of men from the Armed Forces into civilian life, but rather the increase in unemployment among men, particularly young men, over the last year.

Chairman PROXMIRE. If employment or hours in a certain industry, metals, for example, show an increase due to extra production in anticipation of a strike, what happens the last half of the year if we have stockpiled inventories? Does it mean unemployment, a drop in hours? Are there any historical patterns from similar situations?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There are certainly historical patterns, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PROXMIRE. What do they suggest, that we are likely to have this adverse situation at the last half of the year, whether we have a strike or not?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, those patterns themselves would have that effect. But you have to try to answer that question in terms of the whole economy.

Chairman PROXMIRE. I asked you earlier about the effect of the inventory buildup. And you told me that you would like to study it further. I just wondered if you could answer it with respect to metals itself; has it been isolated in that area, or whether it is the explanation for the increased employment or the longer hours in the metals. industry?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There has been a decline in employment, sir.

Mr. MOORE. The increase has been in the workweek, and there has been virtually no change or a slight decline in employment. Chairman PROXMIRE. I misunderstood. I thought in metals there might have been an increase in the last month or so. Perhaps there would have been a lesser increase or a decrease if it had not been for the buildup in steel inventories.

Who are the people considered reentrants to the labor force?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It would be people who were looking for work, which is how we count them as unemployed, and who had worked in the past, as distinct from, say, new entrants, people who had never worked before. And they would be mostly women or young people. Chairman PROXMIRE. I want to thank you gentlemen very, very much. This is a unique and unusual hearing for this committee, and I imagine for you gentlemen here. You have been most responsive and helpful.

I think it is very unsatisfactory that the press did not have a chance to ask questions directly, but perhaps we can work this out. I hope very much that you will reconsider your decision, because I would think that just dropping that press conference does not mean that the American people would have less information than they

otherwise would have on this economy, and all of us recognize that the more they get from nonpartisan, objective experts the better off we will be.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to be here. And, as you can see, I am very happy to have an expert in the field such as Mr. Goldstein to back me up. He is a real expert, and I appreciate his knowledge of this subject.

I do think too that the kind of questions that this committee has put before us are a little more penetrating than the ones that we typically get at a press conference. I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer them.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Let me say, the last four or five questions came directly from the press. I am just Charlie McCarthy; they are Edgar Bergen.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)

CURRENT LABOR MARKET DEVELOPMENTS

FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1971

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1202, New Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Proxmire and Sparkman; and Representative Brown.

Also present: John R. Stark, executive director; Loughlin F. McHugh, senior economist; Richard F. Kaufman and Courtenay M. Slater, economists; Lucy A. Falcone, research economist; and Walter B. Laessig and Leslie J. Barr, economists for the minority.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PROXMIRE

Chairman PROXMIRE. The committee will come to order. This is the second consecutive hearing by the Joint Economic Committee on monthly employment-unemployment trends. These hearings are meant to provide the Congress and the public with meaningful analyses of labor market developments by top-level technicians in the field. It was hoped that by this means the committee would fill the void created by the decision of the Secretary of Labor to abolish the press conference. This conference approach was evolved as a means by which technicians informed the public in a general forum about the many specialized aspects of month-to-month movements which must be taken into account before a true evaluation of developments can be established as to basic trends.

This procedure evolved-and has existed for a decade-because there was a widespread public interest in this critical gage of the temperature of economic well-being. This point was highlighted years ago by the Gordon committee, whose chairman is with us today. Last month at our hearing a former distinguished Commissioner of Labor Statistics, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations, made clear he was aware of problems of the political variety, but he also made clear that even though he was a "political" appointee, he felt he could speak at such press conferences as the technician which he was. And he did so.

It was in this spirit that we last month asked the present Commissioner of Labor Statistics to appear. While he is a political appointee, he is also a highly regarded professional economist. It was in this latter capacity as a professional economist that we asked him to discuss March employment developments. We also asked his technicians to be present to answer questions.